Just Posted: Canon PowerShot G15 studio sample images

Just Posted: Studio test samples from the Canon PowerShot G15. Although closely resembling the existing G-series cameras, the G15 is slightly smaller and features a faster lens than its predecessor. It also gains the latest version of Canon's 12MP 1/1.7"-type CMOS sensor - promising what should be a significant performance improvement over the now rather dated 10MP CCD in its predecessor, the G12. What difference does that sensor make? Have a look at our studio test images to find out.

We've added image quality comparison pages to our PowerShot G15 preview, but the images are also available from other reviews or our standalone comparison tool.

If anybody has this camera could you tell Me if the shutter lag time has improved when using an external Canon flash. I have a G9 which I love but when using an external flash shutter lag is unacceptable. Reviews never seem to address this issue.

I was wondering if a new investment in this P&S camera was a good idea as a back-up camera, well yes it is !! superb IQ,razor sharp images, small,light,easy to use, overall operations much quicker than the older generations ( i had the G10 which was VERY slow) and fixed screen which is what i was looking for !!small sensors can be damn good these days ! forget the boring "blah blah" that has decided as a common rule that small sensor are bad, bigger sensor are much better...I will enjoy this camera and probably use it more often than my dslr gear...

I was Looking at the Fuji x10 untill i saw the G15.My next street camera for running and shooting streetphotography.The fixed lcd is a plus for me and size.Now waiting on the real world samples shots . The price on both i can live with.

You always get comments that show people have never used a particular camera and are repeating what they have read. Such as try fitting a g1x in your pocket or focus in the dark. Both can be done easily. Probably not worth stating negatives about a camera unless you have used it. Canon g15 may not match the g1x for IQ but it is not aimed at the same users so doesn't need to.

New batch of small sensor cameras (with bright lens and BSI-CMOS 1/1.7") has advantage when shooting at above 60mm eq - the faster lens kick in. Their lens designs seem to perform well in wide range of scenarios (including closeups or telephoto).

The "invention" - on the other hand - can use the advantage of the larger sensor when shooting wideangles (below 50mm eq) but the lens sharpness drops (quite a lot) for close-ups.

Summary.For shooting wideangle distant shots (such as family shots or sunsets), RX100 is a definite low-light king. In other scenarios (portraits, concerts), high quality bright lens still have some edge.

These lenses are almost equally sharp, if you change to the raw you can see them without adding contrast, clarity and sharpening. Canon is known for having really nice sharp and punchy .jpg's so that's why it look sharper.

I think Canon need to work harder to produce G2x to make more people happy. The G 1X performance is Not good enough. Yes, it has big sensor, but performance is slow, and many problems there. so I hope G 2X is much better

There are several types of pockets a G1X will fit into. Just because it won't fit in the back pocket of your skinny jeans doesn't mean it isn't pocketable. Beside fitting in a pocket is not relevant to this discussion. Don't forget to that the Sony has a much smaller sensor so of course it will fit into a smaller camera than the G1X sensor.

In the end it is really just down to how much low light preformance you want to sacrifice for the convenience of the camera fitting into a slightly wider variety of pockets.

Sometimes I wonder, how some of the comment writers look at the pictures. Is it so difficult to see the Sony has better sensor performance with its resolution advantage and also with arguably less processed look but the contrast levels and black performance slightly lower than G15. On the other hand the Canon seems to have a better performing brighter zoom lens. I ain't got non of these cameras. In fact I still use a 7 years old digital compact. But to say Nikon has a better low light performance is plainly erm...silly. If G15 is not for you don't buy it. But some people might prefer it over the other cameras because of the brighter lens and-though crappy- viewfinder or some might chose the Nikon for the extra zoom reach or the Sony for its resolution and a slightly better low light performance. Can some of you grow out of your adolescent squabble and think about the functions and how those might serve your photography needs. If you are aware of them of course.

@bobbarber...I would like to draw your attention to my comment stating that the Canon seems to have a better performing zoom lens. It maybe because of a focusing fault or simply because the Sony lens doesn't perform well towards the edges I'm not in the position to be able to tell which. But where the Sony lens is focused there is certainly visible resolution advantage and more fine detail even on high ISO than the others in comparison. Again I think it's down to the individual for which camera they would part with their money because the output differences are subtle rather than obvious in day to day use unless you print everything at pixel level. So one chooses the camera suits one's photography style best.

oselimg, it's also because of the barrel distortion needed to get the Sony lens to work with the Sony sensor. You will see this immediately if you look at the RAWs. You can process this out, but it does effect definition. All small cameras do it, but I find the Sony extreme.

The Nikon P7700 looks better with low ISO jpegs, but Canon looks better at 1600 (not sure why DPR uses 3200 to show default high ISO with these smaller sensor cameras). Raws are more even. I'd say look at the camera's other features and decide that way.

The RX100 doesn't really distance itself from these smaller sensor cameras here. It does have the resolution advantage but it makes softer images (especially off axis) and noise performance isn't much better. Of course resizing the RX100 image to 12mp will show its clear advantage but you pay the price in the wallet and zoom range.

I up-rezzed some Olympus XZ-1 OOC jpegs (not a good test of the camera's quality, since the XZ-1 has a flawed jpeg engine) and compared them to OOC jpegs from the RX100. The images were of the same scene, taken for another photography site.

Conclusion: The RX-100 had more detail and better dynamic range in the middle of the frame, but was handily beaten by the XZ-1 at the edge of the frame, and not just the very edge of the frame, but as much as a quarter of the frame in.

If you look at the edges of the studio image here at dpreview you will come to the same conclusion.

The reason of course, is that the Sony lens is much inferior to the Olympic lens. So we do not have a case of the larger sensor winning, "all else being equal", because all else is not equal.

@ bobbarber:That's a bit too simplistic. This is a close up scene where field curvature etc. hamper the RX100 lens the most. For more distant subjects, the lens performs much better, as also noted by Dpreview.

I think a cameras appeal depends on use. I take mostly macros down low (flowers) and the G12 with it's articulating LCD is essential. Also with my Nex 7, I find the movable LCD useful for shooting over crowds. Much as I like the idea of the larger sensor RX100, I don't see that much of an IQ difference. I doubt in the real world where image content trumps technical quality, most other people would either.

I am looking at the globe now, like you suggested, in the ISO 3200 setting. The P7700 colors are rather drained out... it's almost obvious Nikon has performed color noise removal to their raw files. As for the RX100, it's less than a stop better.

If I had to guess I'd say the P7700 and possibly the G15 will score between 160-200 ISO. So the low-light advantage of the RX100 is a lot less than you think, especially vs the Fuji X10, but vs the better 1/1.7" cameras as well.

So towards the tele end, you gain up to half a stop in noise with the G15, but the less you zoom, the more you gain with the RX100, up to a stop and a half at the wide end. That's about the difference between a FF and APS-C camera from the same generation in terms of noise.

@Dimitri:"Now you see, that RX100 is loosing in low light completely unless you resort to 28mm and soft corners with RX100"

Seems like you missed the comparison above that shows the RX100 sensor has a benefit of about a stop and a half to begin with. So "losing completely" is typical Dimitri talk. Rather quite similar, with a clear benefit at the wide end for the RX100.

First it was 1 EV, now you say 1 1/2 stops better. I'm pretty sure you can read the DxOMark Low-Light Score numbers I posted above. The RX100 doesn't even perform 1 EV better than an X10, and it's just about 1 EV better than a G12.

As far as the RX100's advantage being at the wide end, that would be good if the RX100's lens wasn't so soft at f1.8-f2.

Extract? BS. Camera sensors are getting better and better and now with BSI CMOS sensors you are getting superb performance. Olympus seems to "extract" quite a bit with it's new XZ-2. These samples look as good any RX100 images. I'll take a good fast lens and a small sensor over a mediocre slow lens on a larger sensor any day.

When comparing RAWs at ISO1600, G15 delivers decent quality, no other competitor is noticeably better. Unlike many others I do not see the omission of articulated screen as a big problem; it enabled to make the G15 thinner and more pocketable.

@Rachotilko: no I should not. Even if the lenses were wide open, on that focal length DPR shot the pic the G15 would have f2,3 (my guess) at best and the RX100 would have f3,2 (measured) at best. So the difference is cca. 1 EV, in your example RX100´s ISO 1600 vs. G15´s ISO 800.

The test pics are not taken at the long end. DPR always uses the middle of focal range for (theoterically) best outcome. Likewise they stop down every lens to achieve optimal sharpness.You can check this by pointing at the symbol in the bottom right corner of every picture. E.g. the RX100 was set to 50 mm eq. and f6,3.

It is completelly irrelevant what f-number was chosen by DPR when they did the studio shots. What I was refering to is that in the low-light scenario, you may choose f2.4 with these fast-lensed small sensor compacts, even at tele end.

With RX100, you cannot go faster than f4.9 at tele end. This has obvious implications to shutter speed & ISO choices.

Just to correct you: G15 could have f2,8 at best at tele end, not f2,4. But yeah, I know what you mean to say. I like the lens speed of G15 and would choose it from all enthusiast compact nowadays.On the other hand I have S100 with the same 12 MPix CMOS sensor and according to my experience the borderline for good pictures from this sensor in low light iis ISO1000.

You are absolutely right (the slow lens of S100 is what I keep critisizing) and S100 will have to use higher ISO under similar light conditions, but the thing is, at equal ISO the outcome from S100 and from G15 will be equal. And it means ISO1000 will be the limit also for G15.P.S. Keď už je to debata len nás dvoch, to už môžme kľudne po slovensky.;-)

Not everyone shoots at the long end all day long. At the shorter end you have close to a stop and a half benefit over the smaller sensors in terms of noise, probably the same in terms of DR. And that's in a much smaller package and the G15 weighs almost 50% more too.

G15 has 1 full stop of advantage at 34mm+which increases to 2 stops at the tele end.People who take pictures at 35mm/50mm/80mm will be better off with G15.IF you shoot 28mm only, enjoy soft corners of RX100.

I returned teh G15 last week and swapped with G1X awaiting delivery today. The articulated screen is a great invention -Is Canon pushing buyers to the G1X for the articulated screen? - looks like it.

The video quality is improved on G15, but once again, a lot of noise above even 400 ISO - especially video footage in HD - The same happened with my G12. It must be due to the small sensor? It has more video features than my old G12 - 90% of them never used. Also, the G15 feels very rough, plasticky and cheap compared to the solid G12. Are these camera's weather sealed??

I hope the G1X fares better - or I will be dumping Canon for compacts.

IMO there are 2 reasons for the G15 not having articulated screen:1. the camera became much smaller and more pocketable. When you compare the thickness of G15 and it´s peers (P7700, G12, LX7), it is fairly narrower. While the G12 was almost as big as the G1x, the G15 is noticeably more pocketable.2. Canon has something to give to the successor (G16) and praise how they upgraded the G15. ;-)

More and more I am starting to not see the value of the G line; even though I have been a fan of the G series for many years.

It's a very flexible enthusiast POS camera with decent IQ but sandwhiched between camera's like the RX100 being smaller and more pocketable without losing much in IQ and the micro 4/3, the G's lost me completely.

My last G was the excellent G11 that has shown its age when I compare it to the roughly similar sized (and cheaper!) Nex C3 which produces images so far in IQ difference you can't help but notice.

Over here, these Canon G's cost about the price of a very good ILC with kit.

for example, a brand new G here will cost up to SGD$1100. An EM-5 costs $1600 with kit zoom. Or you could spend SGD$800 for a micro 4/3, Nex C3-5N.

I just don't see the G being relevant at all now. equalled by the RX100, bettered by cheaper mirorless ILC. Both ends being cheaper options as well!

There goes that varying mileage. For me, it's the RX100 when compactness is more important than IQ, G1 X when I want a good compromise, 5D Mk III when I want to focus on IQ, and 1D MkIII when I need to machine gun shots. I have a Micro Four-Thirds system but plan to dump it. The lenses are slow and/or expensive and it's neither fish nor fowl. (The RX100 only equals G1 X in some people's dreams.)

I also like the external, convenient, controls on the G series. Not a fan of rotating lens rings and menus.

Choice is a wonderful thing. One person may well choose what another will not, but for now, that's my favourite line up.

Lies, damn lies, and camera tests, it's so easy to end up seeing only what one wants to see or what others end up making you see. It is impossible to judge camera through single set of studio shots so I prefer to test myself in real world. Below is P7700 vs. G15 side-by-side (Nikon on left), first upper right corner and then lower right corner, shot at practical infinity. Make sure you see them at full size, remember DPR reduces quality of uploaded images, and form your own conclusions.

Also, people like to parrot that G15 has faster lens. Yeah, that is true. But in side-by-side shooting I have been getting more sharp keepers at same focal length from Nikon's slower lens than I was from Canon. I was even getting more sharp keepers from Nikon at 200mm F4 than I was from Canon full tele at 2.8, that's how good VR on P7700 vs. IS on G15 was working for me.

I got to try both for a few days (G15 and P7700). The VR on Nikon was what made me choose P7700 too. Very good! Swivel screen and zoom to 200mm sweetened the deal as well. This is the first Nikon compact I liked. Have only had Canons before, despite having Nikon DSLR. Also have Canon S100, hated the VR on that (I don't have the steadiest of hands due to essential tremor...)

My two favorites spots to compare in the test scene are the old woman and the roman statue faces to see how each camera handles the fine details in those areas as the ISO goes up. When I did that comparison, the G15 did pretty well against the RX100, X10 and P770; it basically tied with the RX100 and was better than the other two. Given that it has a faster lens than the RX100 (once you leave wide-open) and based on those results, the G15 should be the better camera to use in low light conditions.

Having said that, the RX100 test image seems to be blurry in certain areas (e.g. the queen of hearts), so not sure if the quality there represents the best the RX100 has to offer.

I love that he comes on DPR to tell people on DPR how much better he thinks another sites samples are. Its like going into a resturant, not ordering food, and telling all the people around you how much better another resturant's food is.

@Carl, it needs little commonsense to understand that if other wellknown site's sample are much better than this one than it is possible to have better samples from the camera. It also proves that this site did goof up. If this is the only site whose opinion count than whatever you write on your blog is piece of ####t by your own logic.

So in other words I'm completely right, but I knew that already. You're childish insulting replies are at least consistent, thank you again for not letting me down! Keep up the good work Zxaar, entertaining to us all.

There have been many raving reviews about RX100 sensor, but I really don't see it here. Yes, it's better than the one in G15, but only slightly (~ 0.5 stops). I am looking at the color patches at ISO 3200.

The much faster lenses in Oly XZ-2, Panny LX7 and Canon G15 should more than make up this slight difference in sensor performance, no?

You'll bet, and how will you deterimine that? Also, I'm talking about the G series line and how popular it's been since the G series first came out. Always a popular line, the most popular.

Remember the G15 has to split sales between itself and the G1X as well. So you just may be right about it selling half as good as the G12 did, which still means the G series line is the most popular enthusiast camera line of all time.

Remember that the objects in the test scene are not all the same distance from the camera. And with the more shallow DOF of the RX100, you'll get softening of objects in front or behind the focal plane to a greater extent than you will with the smaller sensor cameras.

However, the RX100's performance at close distances is not its strong point and the working distance of our test scene means these shots are not totally representative of how well it performs in the real world.

The RX100 lens can't be that good, particularly at the edges, given its size and the area of the sensor it has to cover. If you mention that on RX100 threads, you get shouted down. With a smaller sensor, it is easier to build a smaller lens that is sharp edge to edge.

I think that the greater DOF of small-sensor cameras is also an advantage, especially in things like macro. You get shouted down if you bring that up too. The idea of equivalence by stopping down and raising ISO doesn't work for me. It doesn't seem to me that noise is linear. These small-sensor compacts with fast lenses are cleaner to my eyes at base ISO than m43 and APS-C cameras at ISO 800 or 1600.

The lens isn't that good. The sensor is. And to get that lens and sensor to work in that compact a body, in terms of physics you have no choice but to create images with barrel distortion, which is then processed out in software. Many cameras do this, but the very features that make the RX100 useful also make it imperative it do it more than most other cameras. I know this infuriates the Sony faithful, but it's the reality. And the optics are not of the best either.

didn't you noticed thus far? I've XZ-1, G15 and yesterday night i got mine Rx-100....after my 5th shot, i come a conclusion that RX100 close up performance not near of XZ-1 and G15...However for portraits which i like to shoot, RX100 shines, much better than XZ-1 and G15 despite it's slower lens even in dim light conditions. Cranck up the iso, you get very clean photos,,,

I love the G series and I own a G11 - vari-angle LCD and 1cm macro are two very strong features of this camera. CMOS sensor in current offering holds a lot of promise but it saddens me deeply that current model (G15) took away the two key features that matter the most (as above). So devastated. I hope future G series bring them back.

I love the folding screens on those of the G series that have it, both for waist level photography and for high level shots over crowds, which I often deal with. However, if you don't like folding screens, flip it screen out and never touch it again.

Well, would be great if we soon could compare the main ambitious compacts (esp those with vari-angle screen) including- Nikon P7700- Samsung EX2- Olympus XF-2- Powershot 15 (no vari-angle, but interesting)

Cameras by definition are 'old tech.' Nothing about them has changed since the invention of photography in 1839. Cameras are still just light-tight boxes with a shutter and lens at one end that projects an image onto a a light-sensitive array which then uses the photons to create a two-dimensional picture. It's all just refinements of the original idea. So yes and no. The G-series is part of the same old tech, but it's still better than what came before it.

Rangefinder cameras and Hasselblads are old tech too. Sometimes old tech last because it works, and for those that like mechanical dials for quick adjustments, the G series is a wonderful choice. I do not like adjusting everything through menus.

Maybe to you it is old tech. Are you asking if everyone should think that too? If so, you might get laughed off stage. The G series have a lot going for them and stay one of the most sought after serious compacts despite competition from CSC' etc. Those that don't get the G series line just don't get it- but that changes nothing about the advantages it has which are many.

Canon needs to allow NR off on Jpegs for the G series, a sore that has been festering for a long time now. Along with eliminating some handholding programming in the firmware that resets the focusing type and metering type after you turn the camera off.

Otherwise, they are extremely appealing cameras and the G15 is no different. Handling, build, and other peformance measures besides the sensor and processing are also extremely important and valuable to shooters as well. Raw performance of the G series cameras is excellent, no matter what the sensor size and especially because they are smaller sensors.

Yes, they've gotten image quality to the level of a high-quality, mid-90s 35mm point and shoot, which is no small accomplishment. Those cameras were awesome. We didn't appreciate them enough. We thought you had to have a bloody SLR to be cool.

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.